Anita Hill Has Some Advice for the Senate Judiciary Committee on How to Handle the Kavanaugh Hearings

There is, perhaps, no person in America better suited to weigh in on the current state of Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination hearings than Anita Hill.

In 1991 the law professor found herself in a position similar to that of Christine Blasey Ford in that both had come forward to accuse a Supreme Court nominee of sexual misconduct. Hill testified about a pattern of sexual harassment during her time working with now Justice Clarence Thomas, while Ford alleges that Kavanaugh drunkenly assaulted her during a party while they were in high school. (He has denied her allegations, just as Justice Thomas denied ever harassing Hill.)

Ford is reportedly considering testifying at the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings about the matter, pending an FBI investigation requested Tuesday by Ford's lawyer to "ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a nonpartisan manner." Hill, having had some experience in this area, is offering some words of wisdom to the Senate Judiciary Committee to get it right this time around.

"Today the public expects better from our government than we got in 1991, when our representatives performed in ways that gave employers permission to mishandle workplace harassment complaints throughout the following decades," Hill writes in The New York Times. "That the Senate Judiciary Committee still lacks a protocol for vetting sexual harassment and assault claims that surface during a confirmation hearing suggests that the committee has learned little from the Thomas hearing, much less the more recent #MeToo movement."

Here are some takeaways from Hill's powerful op-ed:

Don't mix messages.

Hill says that confronting sexual harassment and ensuring the integrity of the Supreme Court are not things that are at odds with each other. "Both are aimed at making sure that our judicial system operates with legitimacy," she writes.

Neutrality is key.

Hill suggests that a neutral body with experience in the subject of sexual misconduct should lead an investigation into Ford's claims so as not to be tainted by the rampant partisanship we see on almost every current political matter. And after that, senators must rely on the results and act as fact finders when asking their own questions. "The investigators’ report should frame the hearing," says Hill. "Not politics or myths about sexual assault."

Slow down.

Rushing the hearings is a mistake, according to Hill. She says it sends the message that these types of allegations are not important. "Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges," she says.

Say her name.

"Finally, refer to Christine Blasey Ford by her name. She was once anonymous, but no longer is. Dr. Blasey is not simply 'Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser.' Dr. Blasey is a human being with a life of her own. She deserves the respect of being addressed and treated as a whole person."

Hill also wisely points out that Kavanaugh has the benefit of organized support for his side while Christine Blasey Ford will be "outresourced" and that "imbalance may not seem fair."

While it may be too late to heed all of Hill's warnings, we can only hope that the process is not as problematic as it was for her in 1991. I remember watching the coverage of those hearings as an almost 16-year-old and taking away the unfortunate message that it was extremely hard to be believed as a woman, no matter how credible your claims.

In the media run-up to Monday's hearing, it would seem that not a lot has changed. I hope I'm proved wrong.